CHAPTER I.

THE WISE MAN TURNED SCRIBE. SIRACH’S MORAL TEACHING.

The inclusion of Sirach within our range of study, as an appendix and counterpart to the canonical Book of Proverbs, requires no long justification. The so-called ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ is in form and colouring almost as much Greek as Hebrew, and has no place in a survey of the wisdom of Palestine. But the ‘Wisdom’ more modestly ascribed to the son of Sirach is a truly Israelitish production, though as yet none but the masters of our subject have recognised its intrinsic importance. Whence comes this prevalent neglect of a work still known as ‘Ecclesiasticus’ or a ‘church-book’? Doubtless it has fallen in estimation from being combined with books more difficult to appraise fairly and consequently regarded with suspicion. The objection which some Jewish doctors entertained to recommending parts of the Hagiographa has been felt by many moderns with regard to the Apocrypha. The objection is too strong and general not to have some foundation, but it implies an unhistorical habit of mind. Granted that the Apocryphal writings of the Old Testament belong in the main to a period of outer and inner decadence (though the noble Maccabean days may qualify this); yet periods of decadence are often also periods of transition to some new and better thing, which cannot be understood or appreciated without them. Ewald has suggested the title of ‘intermediate writings’ (_Zwischenschriften_[254]) as a substitute for Apocrypha, to indicate that transitional character which gives these books so high a value for the student of both Testaments.

The book now before us—the largest and most comprehensive in the Wisdom-literature—is one of these ‘intermediate writings,’ but in what sense beyond the most superficial one remains to be seen. It is mentioned here first of all because of the proof which it gives of the great literary force of the canonical Book of Proverbs. But no product of literature could maintain itself as Sirach has done if it were a mere imitation; Sirach, not less than the Wisdom-books of the Old Testament proper, is at least a partial reflection of the life of the times. Its date indeed has been disputed. Suffice it to say here that the author was, beyond reasonable doubt,[255] a contemporary of ‘Simon the high priest, the son of Onias.’ Now there were five high priests who bore the name of Simon or Simeon, two of whom, Simon I. (B.C. 310-290) and Simon II. (B.C. 219-199), have by different critics been thought of. The weight of argument is in favour of the second of the name, who was certainly the more important of the two, and who is referred to in the Talmud under the name of Simeon the Righteous.[256] This is in accordance with the Greek translator’s statement in his preface that he was the grandson of the author, and we may conjecturally fix the composition of the book at about 180 B.C. The translator himself came into Egypt, as he tells us, in the 38th year of king Euergetes[257] (comp. Luke xxii. 25). Now Euergetes II. Physkon, who must be here intended, began to reign jointly with his brother Philometor B.C. 170; his brother died B.C. 145, and he reigned alone for twenty-five years longer (till B.C. 116). Hence the translator’s arrival in Egypt and possibly the translation itself fall within the year 132. The object of his work, we gather from the preface, was to correct the inequalities of moral and religious culture (παιδεία) among the Jews of Egypt, by setting before them a standard and a lesson-book of true religious wisdom.

Let us pause a little over these dates. It has been well observed by Mommsen that the foundation of Alexandria was as great an event in the history of the people of Israel as the conquest of Jerusalem. It must indeed have seemed to many Israelites more fraught with danger than with hope. Never before had Paganism presented itself to their nation in so attractive a guise. Would their religion exhibit sufficient power of resistance on a foreign soil? The fears, however, were groundless; at any rate, for a considerable time. The forms of Egyptian-Jewish literature might be foreign, but its themes were wholly national. Even in that highly original synthesis of Jewish, Platonic, and Stoic elements—the Book of Wisdom—the Jewish spirit is manifestly predominant. In Palestine there was also a Hellenic movement, though less vigorous and all-absorbing than in Egypt. Without a spontaneous manifestation of Jewish sympathy, Antiochus Epiphanes would never have made his abortive attempt to Hellenise Judæa. Girt round by a Greek population, the Palestinian Jews, in spite of Ezra’s admirable organisation, could not entirely resist the assaults of Hellenism. It is probable that not merely Greek language, but Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of the clearest Jewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of acknowledged fact in asserting that the ardour of Judæan piety, at least in the highest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra’s, and in ascribing this to Greek influences. The high priest Simeon II.,[258] surnamed the Righteous (i.e. the strict observer of the Law), of whom so glowing an account is given by Sirach (chap. i.), is the chief exception to this degeneracy; yet he was powerless to stem the revolutionary current even within his own family. His cousin Joseph was the notorious farmer of the taxes of Palestine, who by his public and private immorality[259] sapped the very foundations of Jewish life, while two of Simeon’s sons, Jason and Menelaus, became the traitorous high priests who promoted the paganising movement under Antiochus. It is well known that many critics refer the Book of Ecclesiastes to the period immediately preceding this great movement. The deep and almost philosophical character of the unknown author’s meditations seems to be in harmony with this date. On the other hand, there is the well-ascertained fact that the Book of Sirach shows no trace of really philosophical thought; it is little more than a new version of the ordinary proverbial morality. It is to this book, the ‘Doppelgänger des kanonischen Spruchbuchs,’ as Schürer calls it, the work, as a Greek writer puts it, of an attendant (ὀπαδός) of Solomon, that these pages are devoted. Nothing is more remarkable (and it ought to make us very deliberate in determining dates upon internal evidence) than the appearance of such a book at such a time.

The name of the author in full is Joshua (Jesus) ben Sira (Sirach),[260] but he may be called Sirach for shortness, this being the form of his family-name in the Greek translation. He tells us himself that he was of Jerusalem; that from his youth up his desire was for wisdom; that he laboured earnestly in searching for her; and that the Lord gave him a tongue for his reward (l. 27; li.) Sirach, in fact, is one of those ‘wise men’ to whom was entrusted so large a part of the religious education of the Jewish people. The remarkable fact that ‘wise men’ exist so long after the time of their prototype Solomon, proves that their activity was an integral part of the Jewish national life. The better class of ‘wise men’ gave an independent support to the nobler class of prophets. With their peremptory style, the prophets would never have succeeded in implanting a really vigorous religion, had not the ‘wise men,’ with their more conciliatory and individualising manner of teaching, supplemented their endeavours. The Babylonian Exile introduced a change into the habits of the ‘wise men,’ who, though some of them used the pen before the overthrow of the state, became thenceforward predominantly, if not entirely, writers on practical moral philosophy. Such was Sirach. He is not indeed a strictly original writer, nor does he lay claim to this. This is how he describes the nature of his work (xxxiii. 16)—

I too, as the last, bestowed zeal, and as one who gleans after the vintage; By the blessing of the Lord I was the foremost, and as a grape-gatherer did I fill the winepress.

Sirach, then, was first of all a collector of proverbs, and he found that most of the current wise sayings had been already gathered. It is not likely that up to xxxvi. 22 he merely combined two older books of proverbs (as Ewald supposed[261]), though it is more than probable that older proverbs do really lie imbedded in his work. But whether old proverbs or new, Sirach has this special characteristic, that he loves to arrange his material by subjects. This was already noticed by the early scribes,[262] and is well brought out by Holtzmann in Bunsen’s _Bibelwerk_, and I will merely refer to chap. xxii. 1-6, ‘On good and bad children;’ 7-18, ‘The character of the fool;’ 19-26, ‘On friendship;’ 27-xxiii. 6, ‘Prayer and warning against sins of the tongue and lusts of the flesh;’ 7-15, ‘The discipline of the mouth;’ 16-27, ‘On adultery;’ xxix. 1-20, ‘On suretyship;’ 21-28, ‘An independent mode of life.’[263] The plan of grouping his material is not indeed thoroughly carried out, but even the attempt marks a progress in the literary art. This is one of the points in which Sirach differs from his canonical predecessors.

In other respects his indebtedness is manifest. Night and day he must have studied his revered models to have attained such insight into the secrets of style. But, so far from affecting originality, he delights in allusions to the older proverbialists. Many parallelisms occur in the sayings on Wisdom (comp. Sir. i. 4, Prov. viii. 22; Sir. i. 14, Prov, i. 4, ix. 10; Sir. iv. 12, 13, Prov. iv. 7, 8; Sir. xxiv. 1, 2, Prov. viii. 1, 2; Sir. xxiv. 3, Prov. ii. 6; Sir. xxiv. 5, Prov. viii. 27). This we might expect; for Wisdom in a large sense is more persistently the object of Sirach than it was at any rate of the earlier writers in Proverbs. But, besides this, points of contact abound in very ordinary sayings. Thus compare, among many others which might be given,

(_a_) Better a mean man that tills for himself than he that glorifies himself and has no bread (Prov. xii. 9, Sept. &c.) Better he that labours and abounds in all things than he that glorifies himself and has no bread (Sir. x. 27, Fritzsche). (_b_) A merry heart makes a cheerful face, but with sorrow of heart is a crushed spirit (Prov. xv. 13). The heart of a man alters his face, as well for good cheer as for bad; A merry face betokens a heart in good case (Sir. xiii. 25, 26a). (_c_) A passionate man stirs up strife, and one that is slow to anger allays contention (Prov. xv. 18). Abstain from strife, and thou shalt diminish thy sins, for a passionate man will kindle strife (Sir. xxviii. 8). (_d_) An intelligent servant rules over the son that causes shame (Prov. xviii. 2). Unto the wise servant shall free men do service (Sir. x. 25). (_e_) Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. xviii. 21). Good and evil, life and death; and the tongue rules over them continually (Sir. xxxvii. 18). (_f_) Golden apples in silver salvers; a word smoothly spoken (Prov. xxv. 11). Golden pillars upon a silver pediment; fair feet upon firm soles (Sir. xxvi. 18, Fritzsche). (_g_) He who digs a pit shall fall therein, and he who rolls a stone, upon himself it shall return (Prov. xxvi. 27). He who casts a stone on high, casts it on his own head; He who digs a pit shall fall therein (Sir. xxvii. 25_a_, 26_a_). (_h_) The crucible for silver, and the furnace for gold, and a man is tried by his praise (Prov. xxvii. 21). The furnace proves the potter’s vessels, the trial of a man is in his discourse (Sir. xxviii. 5).

It will be seen from these examples that, though Sirach adapted and imitated, he did so with much originality. His style has colour, variety, and vivacity, and though Hengstenberg accuses the author of too uniform a mode of treatment, yet a fairer judgment will recognise the skill with which the style is proportioned to the subject; now dithyrambic in his soaring flight, now modestly skimming the ground, the author of the πανάρετος σοφία (for so Sirach, no less than Proverbs, was called[264]) is never feeble and rarely trivial. ‘Its general tone,’ says Stanley, ‘is worthy of that first contact between the two great civilisations of the ancient world.’ ‘Nothing is too high, nor too mean,’ says Schürer, ‘to be drawn within the circle of Sirach’s reflections and admonitions.’ I have elsewhere spoken of his comprehensiveness. This quality he partly owes to his being so steeped in the Scriptures. One result of this is that he is more historical than his predecessors, and connects his wisdom with those narratives of early times, which were either but little known to or valued by the proverb-writers of antiquity. The earlier psalmists and prophets indeed show the same neglect of the traditions of the past: they lived before the editing and gradual completion of any roll of ‘Scriptures.’ Sirach on the other hand (see his preface) had ‘the Law and the Prophets, and the rest of the books,’ the latter collection being a kind of appendix, still open to additions. He was a true ‘scribe,’ and gloried in the name (xxxviii. 24), not in the New Testament sense, but in one not unworthy of a religious philosopher; he gave his mind to the wisdom both of the Scriptures and of ‘all renowned men,’ and travelled through strange countries, trying the good and evil among men. If parts at least of the Book of Job probably contain an autobiographical element, it is still more certain that the chapter (xxxix.) which closes the book before us expresses the ideal of the author’s life. And if he _does_ sometimes take delight in his own attainments, yet why is this to be censured as mere ‘böse Selbstgefälligkeit?[265] A deep consciousness of moral imperfection is not equally to be expected in the Old Testament and in the New, nor should the philosophic writings in the former be appealed to for striking anticipations of fundamental Gospel ideas. Sirach does no doubt in some sense claim inspiration (xxiv. 32-34, l. 28, 29), and place his own work in a line with the prophecies (xxiv. 33), but why should this be set down to arrogant inflation? Lowth, with more charity, quotes similar language of Elihu (Job xxxii. 8, xxxvi. 4) in proof of the speaker’s _modesty_ (_Prælect._ xxxiv.) It was probably a characteristic of the later ‘wise men’ so to account for their wisdom (see above, p. 43), and surely in that wide sense recognised by the Anglican Prayerbook he _was_ ‘inspired,’ he _was_ a ‘son of the prophets.’ I am only sorry that he forgot the lesson of Ex. xxxi. 2 when he wrote so disparagingly of trades (xxxviii. 25 &c.), and agree with Dr. Edersheim[266] that the Jewish teachers of the time of Christ and afterwards were more advanced on this point than the son of Sirach.

It is true enough that there are sayings in this book which offend the Christian sentiment, and which serve to show how great was the spiritual distress which the Gospel alone could relieve. For instance,

(_a_) He who honours his father shall make atonement for sins (iii. 3). Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms make atonement for sin (iii. 30). Brethren and help are against time of trouble; but alms deliver more than both (xl. 24).

Here is one of those ‘false beacon lights’ of which Prof. Bissell speaks (_Apocrypha_, p. 282). But in arrest of judgment remember that long discipline in the duties spoken of has produced some of the finest qualities in the Jewish character.

(_b_) Happy the man who has not offended in his speech, and is not pricked with grief for sins (xiv. 1). (_c_) Gain credit with thy neighbour in his poverty, that thou mayest rejoice in his prosperity; abide stedfast unto him in the time of his affliction, that thou mayest be heir with him in his heritage (xxii. 23). (_d_) Nine things I in my heart pronounce happy, ... and he that lives to see the fall of enemies (xxiv. 7; comp. also xii. 10-12, xxx. 6). (_e_) Who will praise the Most High in Hades, instead of those who live and give praise? (xvii. 27.) For man cannot do everything, because the son of man is not immortal (xvii. 30).

With the latter saying, contrast Wisd. of Sol. ii. 23, ‘For God created man for immortality.’

(_f_) (Give me) any plague but the plague of the heart, and any wickedness but the wickedness of a woman &c. (xxv. 13-26).

This opening verse might perhaps be otherwise rendered,

Any wound but a wound in the heart, and any evil but evil in a wife.

The misfortune of having a bad wife is often touched upon in the Talmud. Ewald’s sentence is however just, that Sirach’s ‘estimate of women, and sharp summary counsel concerning divorce (see ver. 26), place [him] far below the height of the Hebrew Bible.’[267]

I admit the imperfection of these moral statements; but can they not several of them be paralleled from the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes? And can we not find as many more anticipations of the moral teaching of the Synoptic Gospels and St. James (e.g. iv. 10, vii. 11, 14, xi. 18, 19, xv. 14, xvii. 15, xxiii. 4, 11, 18)? Do not let us undervalue any foregleams of the coming dawn.

Footnote 254:

_Revelation_, p. 365; _Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott_, i. 378.

Footnote 255:

Note the phrase in i. 1, ‘who _in his life_ repaired the house,’ implying ‘now indeed he is dead.’ Grätz in fact is the only scholar who doubts the author’s contemporaneousness with Simon (_Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 114).

Footnote 256:

See, besides the well-known passage in _Pirke Aboth_ (i. 2), the legendary extracts from (_Bab._) _Yoma_, 39_b_, translated by Wünsche, _Der bab. Talmud_, i. 1, pp. 368-9; and comp. Derenbourg, _Hist. de la Palestine_, i. 44 &c.

Footnote 257:

So we must paraphrase ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου Βασίλεως. See Stanley’s note in _Jewish Church_, iii. 235, and Abbot’s note in the American edition of Smith’s _Bible Dict._ (I am indebted to Bissell for the latter reference). Comp. Wright, _The Book of Koheleth_, p. 34 n.

Footnote 258:

The Mishna (_Pirke Aboth_, i. 2) ascribes this saying to Simeon the Righteous: ‘On three things the world stands—revelation (_tōra_), worship, and the bestowal of kindnesses.’

Footnote 259:

See Jos., _Ant._, xii. 4.

Footnote 260:

On the identity of the Ben Sira of the Talmud and our Sirach, see Horowitz in Frankel’s _Monatsschrift_, 1865, p. 181 &c. The _ch_ in the form Sirach may be due to an old error in the Greek text.

Footnote 261:

_Hist. of Israel_, v. 263-4. Ewald includes xxxix. 12-35 in the portion belonging to the second (supposed) collection.

Footnote 262:

See the headings at certain points of the Greek version.

Footnote 263:

With vv. 21, 23 comp. St. Paul, Phil. iv. 11, 12.

Footnote 264:

See St. Jerome, _Præf. ad Libros Salomonis_, and comp. Lightfoot’s _Clement of Rome_, p. 164 &c.

Footnote 265:

Keerl, _Die Apokryphenfrage_ (1855), p. 214.

Footnote 266:

_Sketches of Jewish Social Life_, p. 189.

Footnote 267:

Ewald, _Revelation_, p. 364 n.